24 February 2010

Despite the bellicose rhetoric that emanates from much of the Right, opposition to the interventionist policies initiated by George W. Bush is hardly confined to libertarians and the political Left. It includes traditional conservatives—those conservatives who take their bearings from Burke and Tocqueville, who regard society as both fragile and complex, so complex that no one individual or group can ever presume to comprehend its intricacies.

Traditional conservatives are convinced that global interventions, aside from the attendant loss of life and enormous expense, hold little hope for success since the ingredients for a stable democratic order are seriously lacking in the nations we seek to reform. Key variables include vibrant and healthy intermediate social institutions and associations to serve as effective buffers against an omnipotent government; a decentralized political order in which the principle of subsidiarity is honored; deeply held convictions, religious or customary, that provide meaningful distinctions between state and society, thereby establishing limits to the range of governmental authority; and a recognition of rights with corresponding responsibilities.

While elements of traditional conservatism find expression in classical thought—Aristotle comes immediately to mind—in the American context they are found particularly in the New Humanism of Irving Babbitt and Paul Elmer More and, after World War II, in the major writings of Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, and Robert Nisbet. Today, the principles of traditional conservatism inform the works of Peter Stanlis, Bruce Frohnen, and Claes Ryn, to name but a few. And until a relatively recent date, those who embrace traditionalist principles and values found a friendly home within the Republican Party.

The steadfast opposition of traditionalist conservatives to the War on Terror initiated by a Republican president stands in sharp contrast to the stance they assumed during the Cold War, when they justifiably earned an image as hardliners implacably committed to the elimination of the Soviet Union and willing to take bold measures to ensure this end. How can these seemingly inconsistent positions be reconciled?

From my perspective, as a politically aware traditional conservative during the entire Cold War era, the obvious answer is that traditionalists believed that the Soviet Union posed an unprecedented threat to the very existence of Western civilization, whereas the stakes involved in the War on Terror are nowhere near as monumental. While the Cold War called for an active and, at times, militant interventionism, handling our present difficulties requires different and far less drastic measures.

There is a dimension to the traditionalists’ perspective of history that explains why they believed the Soviets posed such a historic threat. Simply put, most traditionalists have long perceived our intervention into World War I as a colossal mistake, which initiated a chain reaction that produced World War II, which in turn set the stage for the Cold War. The traditionalists’ inherent aversion to interventionism is readily seen in their longstanding and well-documented rejection of Wilson’s version of American exceptionalism and in their derision of his vision of America as a “redeemer nation” with divinely ordained missions. Nevertheless, while holding that we should not have intervened in World War I, traditionalists came to conclude that we could only extricate ourselves from its disastrous consequences through intervention. Once free of the wreckage caused by Wilson’s war, however, traditionalists believed we could turn away from interventionist policies and chart a new course.

Writing in 1988, Robert Nisbet contended that since the First World War, the United States had been engaged in what amounted to “a virtual Seventy-Five Years War.” With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, traditionalists had every reason to believe that long war had finally come to an end. They welcomed this liberation. Not only did it open up the possibility, consonant with conservative thought stretching back at least 50 years, that we could significantly reduce our role in the world, it also allowed us a freer hand in formulating our foreign policy on the basis of genuine American interests. Above all, the Soviet collapse seemed to reduce considerably the risk of war. But this new and more limited foreign-policy vision was blotted out at its inception by far grander visions of a New World Order.

To traditionalists’ dismay, Nisbet’s “Seventy-Five Years War,” far from ending, will soon become the “Hundred Years War”—with no end in sight. How did this come to pass? How could a Republican administration have played such a major role in this renewed adventurism with so little resistance from within the party, particularly its congressional wing? And why have criticisms of this conservative turnabout had so little impact? After all, the doctrines used to justify our invasion of Iraq—derivatives of Wilson’s vision of American exceptionalism—had been virtually the exclusive domain of the Democratic Party.

There is no simple answer. Certainly party loyalty comes into play. As I learned much to my consternation at Philadelphia Society meetings, even individuals receptive to traditional conservative views felt the need to support Republican policies and office-holders when they came under attack from Democrats. No doubt, among the Republican members of Congress, the lure of party loyalty was even more imperative. They feared that dissension would threaten their careers. Above all, they didn’t want to endanger the party’s chances of retaining the presidency, the gem of all elective offices given its unrivaled power to dispense wealth and honors.

Neoconservative dominance within the Republican Party is, undoubtedly, another major factor. Not only did these latecomers secure high positions in George W. Bush’s administration, they came to dominate major think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and even, to a significant extent, the liberal Brookings Institution. These institutional perches, combined with neocons’ disproportionate presence in the prestige media, rendered traditionalists and other dissidents voices in the wilderness. In stunningly swift order, the mark of “real” conservatives came to be their uncritical support of interventionist policies. Indeed, in important sectors of the political landscape, traditional conservatives are not even considered conservatives anymore.

But the single most important factor accounting for the lack of dissent within Republican ranks is the mentality created and nourished by the Cold War. During that era, individuals were habituated to think in terms of a determined enemy, an “evil empire” intent upon imposing a totalitarian order. In keeping with this state of mind was an unquestioned acceptance of aggressive foreign interventions. American exceptionalism supported and justified our militant policies. If the U.S. was “the last best hope of mankind,” our crusades were inherently righteous.

Though the Soviet Union collapsed, the mindset that had been nurtured over a period of 40 years was so ingrained in our political culture that it simply could not be uprooted overnight. Nor were we given much time for reorientation, for American intervention scarcely stopped, resuming swiftly after the disintegration of the Soviet Union with the first Gulf War, whose presumed purpose was to restore “democracy” to Kuwait.

While this and other military ventures served to keep the embers glowing, the later Iraq War fully restored the fires. With the “axis of evil,” we found a familiar brand of enemy. More imaginative neocons fanned the flames with a nearly endless list of potential foes, even suggesting that we were now in the midst of “World War IV”—the Cold War being World War III—a titanic struggle for the survival of Western civilization against the forces of “Islamo-fascism.”

In retrospect, had traditionalists exercised greater prudence during the Cold War—if only by critically appraising what our government was telling us about the capabilities of the Soviet Union—the chances of introducing realism into 21st-century policies might have been enhanced. At the very least, traditionalists can be faulted for accepting virtually every Cold War policy or action, including the Vietnam War, as vital to confronting the Soviet challenge. The most damaging legacy of the Cold War mentality has been the effective elimination of strategic alternatives in our foreign and military policies. As the Lyndon Johnson tapes reveal, he recognized at an early stage that disengagement from Vietnam would be the most prudent policy. Yet these tapes also show that this was a path not taken because doing so would have been an act of political suicide, given the certainty that hardline Republicans would charge LBJ and his party with being “soft on communism.”

Barack Obama’s Afghan policies were likely formulated against a similar backdrop. He could not show “weakness”—could not seriously consider the gradual reduction of forces as a logical course of action—for fear of the political fallout. The lamentable fact is that for decades many, if not most, Democrats have for reasons of sheer political expediency also acquiesced in following the “imperatives” dictated by the Cold War mentality.

Is there any possibility of overcoming this legacy? Perhaps, if enough Republicans and Democrats stand up to the new breed of hardline Cold Warriors. Otherwise, we will continue to fight the last war, inflating distant threats into epic enemies until such time as the American people come to their senses or run out of money.
__________________________________________

George W. Carey is professor of government at Georgetown University and author of A Student’s Guide to American Political Thought.

21 February 2010

They came in their thousands, queuing through the night to secure one of the coveted wristbands offering entry into a strange parallel universe where medical care is a free and basic right and not an expensive luxury. Some of these Americans had walked miles simply to have their blood pressure checked, some had slept in their cars in the hope of getting an eye-test or a mammogram, others had brought their children for immunisations that could end up saving their life.

In the week that Britain's National Health Service was held aloft by Republicans as an "evil and Orwellian" example of everything that is wrong with free healthcare, these extraordinary scenes in Inglewood, California yesterday provided a sobering reminder of exactly why President Barack Obama is trying to reform the US system.

The LA Forum, the arena that once hosted sell-out Madonna concerts, has been transformed – for eight days only – into a vast field hospital. In America, the offer of free healthcare is so rare, that news of the magical medical kingdom spread rapidly and long lines of prospective patients snaked around the venue for the chance of getting everyday treatments that many British people take for granted.

In the first two days, more than 1,500 men, women and children received free treatments worth $503,000 (£304,000). Thirty dentists pulled 471 teeth; 320 people were given standard issue spectacles; 80 had mammograms; dozens more had acupuncture, or saw kidney specialists. By the time the makeshift medical centre leaves town on Tuesday, staff expect to have dispensed $2m worth of treatments to 10,000 patients.

The gritty district of Inglewood lies just a few miles from the palm-lined streets of Beverly Hills and the bright lights of Hollywood, but is a world away. And the residents who had flocked for the free medical care, courtesy of mobile charity Remote Area Medical, bore testament to the human cost of the healthcare mess that President Obama is attempting to fix.

Christine Smith arrived at 3am in the hope of seeing a dentist for the first time since she turned 18. That was almost eight years ago. Her need is obvious and pressing: 17 of her teeth are rotten; some have large visible holes in them. She is living in constant pain and has been unable to eat solid food for several years.

"I had a gastric bypass in 2002, but it went wrong, and stomach acid began rotting my teeth. I've had several jobs since, but none with medical insurance, so I've not been able to see a dentist to get it fixed," she told The Independent. "I've not been able to chew food for as long as I can remember. I've been living on soup, and noodles, and blending meals in a food mixer. I'm in constant pain. Normally, it would cost $5,000 to fix it. So if I have to wait a week to get treated for free, I'll do it. This will change my life."

Along the hall, Liz Cruise was one of scores of people waiting for a free eye exam. She works for a major supermarket chain but can't afford the $200 a month that would be deducted from her salary for insurance. "It's a simple choice: pay my rent, or pay my healthcare. What am I supposed to do?" she asked. "I'm one of the working poor: people who do work but can't afford healthcare and are ineligible for any free healthcare or assistance. I can't remember the last time I saw a doctor."

Although the Americans spend more on medicine than any nation on earth, there are an estimated 50 million with no health insurance at all. Many of those who have jobs can't afford coverage, and even those with standard policies often find it doesn't cover commonplace procedures. California's unemployed – who rely on Medicaid – had their dental care axed last month.

Julie Shay was one of the many, waiting to slide into a dentist's chair where teeth were being drilled in full view of passers-by. For years, she has been crossing over the Mexican border to get her teeth done on the cheap in Tijuana. But recently, the US started requiring citizens returning home from Mexico to produce a passport (previously all you needed was a driver's license), and so that route is now closed. Today she has two abscesses and is in so much pain she can barely sleep. "I don't have a passport, and I can't afford one. So my husband and I slept in the car to make sure we got seen by a dentist. It sounds pathetic, but I really am that desperate."

"You'd think, with the money in this country, that we'd be able to look after people's health properly," she said. "But the truth is that the rich, and the insurance firms, just don't realise what we are going through, or simply don't care. Look around this room and tell me that America's healthcare don't need fixing."

President Obama's healthcare plans had been a central plank of his first-term programme, but his reform package has taken a battering at the hands of Republican opponents in recent weeks. As the Democrats have failed to coalesce around a single, straightforward proposal, their rivals have seized on public hesitancy over "socialised medicine" and now the chance of far-reaching reform is in doubt.

Most damaging of all has been the tide of vociferous right-wing opponents whipping up scepticism at town hall meetings that were supposed to soothe doubts. In Pennsylvania this week, Senator Arlen Specter was greeted by a crowd of 1,000 at a venue designed to accommodate only 250, and of the 30 selected speakers at the event, almost all were hostile.

The packed bleachers in the LA Forum tell a different story. The mobile clinic has been organised by the remarkable Remote Area Medical. The charity usually focuses on the rural poor, although they worked in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Now they are moving into more urban venues, this week's event in Los Angeles is believed to be the largest free healthcare operation in the country.

Doctors, dentists and therapists volunteer their time, and resources to the organisation. To many US medical professionals, it offers a rare opportunity to plug into the public service ethos on which their trade was supposedly founded. "People come here who haven't seen a doctor for years. And we're able to say 'Hey, you have this, you have this, you have this'," said Dr Vincent Anthony, a kidney specialist volunteering five days of his team's time. "It's hard work, but incredibly rewarding. Healthcare needs reform, obviously. There are so many people falling through the cracks, who don't get care. That's why so many are here."

Ironically, given this week's transatlantic spat over the NHS, Remote Area Medical was founded by an Englishman: Stan Brock. The 72-year-old former public schoolboy, Taekwondo black belt, and one-time presenter of Wild Kingdom, one of America's most popular animal TV shows, left the celebrity gravy train in 1985 to, as he puts it, "make people better".

Today, Brock has no money, no income, and no bank account. He spends 365 days a year at the charity events, sleeping on a small rolled-up mat on the floor and living on a diet made up entirely of porridge and fresh fruit. In some quarters, he has been described, without too much exaggeration, as a living saint.

Though anxious not to interfere in the potent healthcare debate, Mr Brock said yesterday that he, and many other professionals, believes the NHS should provide a benchmark for the future of US healthcare.

"Back in 1944, the UK government knew there was a serious problem with lack of healthcare for 49.7 million British citizens, of which I was one, so they said 'Hey Mr Nye Bevan, you're the Minister for Health... go fix it'. And so came the NHS. Well, fast forward now 66 years, and we've got about the same number of people, about 49 million people, here in the US, who don't have access to healthcare."

"I've been very conservative in my outlook for the whole of my life. I've been described as being about 90,000 miles to the right of Attila the Hun. But I think one reaches the reality that something doesn't work... In this country something has to be done. And as a proud member of the US community but a loyal British subject to the core, I would say that if Britain could fix it in 1944, surely we could fix it here in America."

16 February 2010

A few weeks ago the Russian newspaper Izvestia, a well-known and authoritive daily published nationwide and abroad, came forward with something that would have been looked upon as a conspiracy theory if published by a tabloid.

The paper suggested that by attacking South Ossetia, the Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili had badly damaged a planned U.S. military operation against Iran. In the newspaper's opinion Georgia was supposed to play the role of another “unsinkable aircraft carrier” for the U.S., i.e. an operational and tactical base for U.S.
aircraft that would be making bombing raids into Iran. Something akin to what Thailand was in the Vietnam war.

Thailand certainly benefited from the arrangement, and Georgia would have too, insists the paper, if its President hadn't put his ambitions above the US national interest and ended up beaten, disarmed, chewing on his neckties and totally incapable of providing whatever the U.S. needs from him.

That's why, according to Izvestia in yet another article on the matter, the U.S. response to the Russian retaliation was harsh in words but very mild in action. The latest on the issue suggests that Mikhail Saakashvili may be replaced any day now by direct order from Washington.

Having read the story in Izvestia I decided to try to figure out the extent of improbability and impossibility of the assumptions. As I was doing that, I remembered that early in August CNN had started showing U.S. generals who cried for more troops and hardware for Afghanistan which, in their opinion, was rapidly becoming a more intensive conflict than Iraq.

Shortly after that, a phone call came from a college friend who had just come back from Kandahar in Afghanistan, where he had seen American battle tanks being unloaded from a Ukrainian-registered Antonov-124 “Ruslan”, the heaviest and largest cargo airplane in the world. The friend asked if I had any idea what tanks would be good for in Afghanistan, and I said I didn't. It's an established fact from the Soviet war in Afghanistan that tanks are no good for most of the country's mountainous territory. They are good for flatlands, and the main body of flat land in the region is right across the border in Iran.

Later in August there was another bit of unofficial information from a Russian military source: more than a thousand American tanks and armored vehicles had been shipped to Eastern Afghanistan by Ukrainian “Ruslans” flying in three to five shipments a day, and more flights were expected.

Somehow all this, together with the series of articles in Izvestia, the information that all U.S. troops in Afghanistan are going to be reassigned and regrouped under unified command, the arrival of NATO naval ships in the Black Sea, the appointment of a man used to command troops in a combat environment as the new commander of the US Central Command and other bits and pieces. To my total astonishment, when they all fell together the Izvestia story started looking slightly more credible than before.

Today the U.S. media reported that there had been a leak from the Pentagon about a secret Presidential order in which President Bush authorized his military (most of which is currently on Afghan soil) to conduct operations in Pakistan without the necessity for informing the Pakistani government. The U.S. military in Afghanistan – or shall we say in the whole region neighboring Iran – is getting a freer hand by the day. And it is getting more and more hardware to play with.

Of course it's quite clear now that Georgia has lost its immediate potential as a nearby airfield, but after all, the aircraft carriers in the Gulf are not so far away.

Believe me I'm not saying that the U.S. is going to start an all-out war against Iran tomorrow. But aren't there indications that it may happen the day after tomorrow, a month from now, or on any date before the official handover of Presidency in the U.S.? Or, as some suggest, before the election?

I'm just asking the questions. But there are some people, like those working for Izvestia, for instance, who answer them with a “yes”.

12 February 2010

If I had my way, I'd never have to write about politics ever again. I hate politics. I'd rather be following the NHL, watching Star Trek & South Park or listen to some tunes and paint. But I simply can't allow myself such pleasures when there are men bent on destroying my country.
What else am I supposed to do then? Keep quiet and just let this evil happen like the Germans did?
So I do the only thing I know how to do. Call it out, challenge those who support these reckless men, complain, make my voice and my vote heard.
But these loyal followers of the Republican party will not be persuaded. To them, I am the evil one, the traitor.
In their mind, if I truly loved America, I would favor the federal government stripping all Americans of their freedoms and fundamental civil liberties so that they can "weed out the undesireables". I would favor torture. I would favor war. I would favor corporations as human beings.
I would break the law anytime I needed to for the sake of the party. I would spread lies and call them truths.

Does that sound like America to you? How is it we went from being known for our cockeyed optimism and sense of fair play to being known today for arrogance and ability to destroy all civilization on the planet?
Does that sound to any good American something to stand up for or something to resist with every Patriotic bone in your body.
I simply can't be silent when I see one group of people actively, viciously trying everything they can to destroy our nation and our duly elected President. I will not ignore when Republicans or any other grubby politician breaks the law. America was founded on Truth, Justice and the American way!
All good Americans should resisit the Republican party.

10 February 2010

It Is Now Official: The US Is a Police State by Paul Craig Roberts -- Antiwar.com
Americans have been losing the protection of law for years. In the 21st century the loss of legal protections accelerated with the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” which continues under the Obama administration and is essentially a war on the Constitution and U.S. civil liberties.
The Bush regime was determined to vitiate habeas corpus in order to hold people indefinitely without bringing charges. The regime had acquired hundreds of prisoners by paying a bounty for terrorists. Afghan warlords and thugs responded to the financial incentive by grabbing unprotected people and selling them to the Americans.
The Bush regime needed to hold the prisoners without charges because it had no evidence against the people and did not want to admit that the U.S. government had stupidly paid warlords and thugs to kidnap innocent people. In addition, the Bush regime needed “terrorists” prisoners in order to prove that there was a terrorist threat.
As there was no evidence against the “detainees” (most have been released without charges after years of detention and abuse), the U.S. government needed a way around U.S. and international laws against torture in order that the government could produce evidence via self-incrimination. The Bush regime found inhumane and totalitarian-minded lawyers and put them to work at the U.S. Department of Justice (sic) to invent arguments that the Bush regime did not need to obey the law.
The Bush regime created a new classification for its detainees that it used to justify denying legal protection and due process to the detainees. As the detainees were not U.S. citizens and were demonized by the regime as “the 760 most dangerous men on earth,” there was little public outcry over the regime’s unconstitutional and inhumane actions.
As our Founding Fathers and a long list of scholars warned, once civil liberties are breached, they are breached for all. Soon U.S. citizens were being held indefinitely in violation of their habeas corpus rights. Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, an American citizen of Pakistani origin, might have been the first.
Dr. Siddiqui, a scientist educated at MIT and Brandeis University, was seized in Pakistan for no known reason, sent to Afghanistan, and was held secretly for five years in the U.S. military’s notorious Bagram prison in Afghanistan. Her three young children, one an 8-month-old baby, were with her at the time she was abducted. She has no idea what has become of her two youngest children. Her oldest child, 7 years old, was also incarcerated in Bagram and subjected to similar abuse and horrors.
Siddiqui has never been charged with any terrorism-related offense. A British journalist, hearing her piercing screams as she was being tortured, disclosed her presence. An embarrassed U.S. government responded to the disclosure by sending Siddiqui to the U.S. for trial on the trumped-up charge that while a captive, she grabbed a U.S. soldier’s rifle and fired two shots attempting to shoot him. The charge apparently originated as a U.S. soldier’s excuse for shooting Dr. Siddiqui twice in the stomach, resulting in her near death.
On Feb. 4, Dr. Siddiqui was convicted by a New York jury for attempted murder. The only evidence presented against her was the charge itself and an unsubstantiated claim that she had once taken a pistol-firing course at an American firing range. No evidence was presented of her fingerprints on the rifle that this frail and broken 100-pound woman had allegedly seized from an American soldier. No evidence was presented that a weapon was fired, no bullets, no shell casings, no bullet holes. Just an accusation.
Wikipedia has this to say about the trial: “The trial took an unusual turn when an FBI official asserted that the fingerprints taken from the rifle, which was purportedly used by Aafia to shoot at the U.S. interrogators, did not match hers.”
An ignorant and bigoted American jury convicted her for being a Muslim. This is the kind of “justice” that always results when the state hypes fear and demonizes a group.
The people who should have been on trial are the people who abducted her, disappeared her young children, shipped her across international borders, violated her civil liberties, tortured her apparently for the fun of it, raped her, and attempted to murder her with two gunshots to her stomach. Instead, the victim was put on trial and convicted.
This is the unmistakable hallmark of a police state. And this victim is an American citizen.
Anyone can be next. Indeed, on Feb. 3 Dennis Blair, director of national intelligence told the House Intelligence Committee that it was now “defined policy” that the U.S. government can murder its own citizens on the sole basis of someone in the government’s judgment that an American is a threat. No arrest, no trial, no conviction, just execution on suspicion of being a threat.
This shows how far the police state has advanced. A presidential appointee in the Obama administration tells an important committee of Congress that the executive branch has decided that it can murder American citizens abroad if it thinks they are a threat.
I can hear readers saying the government might as well kill Americans abroad as it kills them at home – Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Black Panthers.
Yes, the U.S. government has murdered its citizens, but Dennis Blair’s “defined policy” is a bold new development. The government, of course, denies that it intended to kill the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver’s wife and child, or the Black Panthers. The government says that Waco was a terrible tragedy, an unintended result brought on by the Branch Davidians themselves. The government says that Ruby Ridge was Randy Weaver’s fault for not appearing in court on a day that had been miscommunicated to him. The Black Panthers, the government says, were dangerous criminals who insisted on a shootout.
In no previous death of a U.S. citizen by the hands of the U.S. government has the government claimed the right to kill Americans without arrest, trial, and conviction of a capital crime.
In contrast, Dennis Blair has told the U.S. Congress that the executive branch has assumed the right to murder Americans who it deems a “threat.”
What defines “threat”? Who will make the decision? What it means is that the government will murder whomever it chooses.
There is no more complete or compelling evidence of a police state than the government announcing that it will murder its own citizens if it views them as a “threat.”
Ironic, isn’t it, that “the war on terror” to make us safe ends in a police state with the government declaring the right to murder American citizens whom it regards as a threat.

09 February 2010

Tom Tancredo is a racist like everyone else in the Tea part movement. Tancredo hates colored people of all walks of life just like his followers. I suppose it makes sense; racism is alive and well in America and thrivingas well. Still when a bunch of angry, frothing at the mouth white folk get together and bash colored people, you have to think white supremecists, Ku Klux Klan or Republican.

Since their inception, the Tea party has declared they are independants not affiliated with any political party but at their recent convention we see that this is a bald faced lie: the leaders of the for-profit Tea party group is a Republican who's who list. Further, the Tea party base spouts the same rhetoric as the Republican party and the same racism.
Tom Tancredo said at the convention "People who could not spell the word vote or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House -- name is Barack Hussein Obama."
I watched him say that, heard the spitting, hissing emphasis on "Hussein". So illiterate folk (blacks, Tom?) and people of different cultures who don't speak English well are either stupid colored folk or anti-American. And the President is a radical Islamist. Racism 101.
"...we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country," Tancredo lamented. I wonder how many of the dumbasses in the Tea party could pass a civics test?

So there's a problem here. Tea party members do have valid points like immigration reform or smaller federal government, things that Republicans give lip service to but do nothing to fix. In fact it seems all either party can do is blame Obama for Bush's failed policies. Like when Tancredo says, "He has put the government in control of the economy,"
Oh yeah? Where? Examples? The bailout was the Bush administration's mess; Obama only got half the funds Bush paid out. If Obama did anything it was to ensure the money wasn't wasted by using government oversight so the money could be repaid to the American people. That's what makes Obama a Socialist? Man you retards need to get a dictionary.
Tancredo goes on to say that the Tea party movement "has the potential to revitalize the Republican Party," something he said his party "desperately needs."
His party? Which is it Tom? Are you a Republican first than a Teabagger? Are you simply trying to shore up the Bush base under the pretext of making real political changes or are you simply lying to some sincere, though misguided, Americans who really want government reform as passionately as I do?

"There is the potential that the movement can take over the party from the bottom up, by getting candidates elected," he said.
What kind of reform talk is this??? Oh we aren't a seperate party, we're Republicans and the party isn't white enough or Christian enough. We will usurp the corrupt with our own brand of hatred and divisiveness!
"There is a devotion to a multiculturalist agenda" Tancredo said, that can "divide America up into these subgroups" that are "at odds linguistically, culturally. Assimilation is not occurring to the degree it should. People now talk only of integration."
Assimilation? Are we all Borg now and the Tea party our collective? Does every person in America have to follow White culture before they can vote or be considered equals? Integration of all Americans bad, assimilation into our racist, political party good? Is Sarah Palin being set up to be the American Borg Queen? Obviously she is racist as well.

Now I have maintained for the last couple of years that the GOP is a group of active traitors to America looking to undermine her Constitution and destroy the American way of life. Republicans hate our values, our freedoms, frequently aid and comfort the enemy, advocate overthrowing the federal government (hey GOP, you absorb the Tea party, you get blamed for their actions), foment rebellion, they incite the masses to commit acts of violence against the President of the United States and non-Republican members of Congress, they knowingly and willfully slander the President, use racial epithets about him and refuse to help fix the nation's problems.
Not to mention their crimes against humanity under the illegal Bush regieme.

It's sad really. Right now across America Tea party loyalists think they are actually achieving something but in reality they have simply been duped yet again by the GOP.
The GOP owns you now, teabaggers. You sold out your faith, your country and fellow Americans and for what?
More of the same.
Republicans don't want to help you, they just need to use you so they can continue destroying our country and our way of life. I see it is with great applause and cheers you support their efforts, you lousy turncoats. Maybe instead of Tea party you should consider the Benedict Arnold party.

08 February 2010

So I'm not going to sugar coat this one bit just so you know where I stand: Sarah Palin is a gold digging adultress, who's opinions shouldn't matter any more than mine. She has deceived millions of my fellow Americans like fundamentalist Christian women who adore her and men across the political and fundamentalist Christian spectrum because to them Sarah Palin is a MILF. I have overheard such speech myself.
She is stupid, unlearned in world events or history, she is incompetant, a lawbreaker according to some Alaskan investigations. She is liar, a bearer of false witness. Reckless. As bad for the job as Dubya Bush was. 2 faced.
For some reason a lot of American white folk want her to be President.
She could easily win over the so called "Bush base".
This makes Sarah Palin, a self proclaimed rogue, dangerous. Her hard Radical Right positions betray her as an anti-Constitutional activist. Her fundamentalist Christian beliefs mark her as deranged. Her faith comes before America and if her America doesn't fit the image in her brain of a fundamentalist Christian America, she and her cronies will do all in their power to legislate it so. More laws will be broken, more rights given away, more wars waged.
Who ever said the Antichrist would be a man?

So Sarah took great offense at one Democrat calling other Democrats "fucking retarded". True it's not quite Cheney telling a Democratic congressman to "go fuck yourself!" but I don't remember Mrs. Palin ever commenting about Cheney's faux paux on her Facebook. Turns out that Sarah Palin has no issues with the word fuck or saying "effing" on Fix News. No, she was offended at the word "retarded". In fact, she declared, "calling someone retarded is a racial slur equal to calling someone a nigger."
Wow. Really Sarah? If I call a black person retarded, I doubt that he's going to beat me to death. Let me, or any of you out there, go and call a black guy a nigger and see what happens!
People don't go up to the handicapped to call them retarded or nigger.
"Retard" and "retarded" are primarily used as slang in the American lexicon just like "gay" or "bitchin'". For example:
Not having colonies on the Moon and Mars by now is pretty retarded.
You are acting retarded.
That movie was retarded.
See? You can use all 3 of those words. You're acting gay, that movie was bitchin'. Notice how the word "nigger" just won't fit. Neither would spick, kike or gook.
Do you get it now Mrs. Palin? Racial epithets are designed to humiliate, lower, prove white dominance, keep minorities 'in their place', to provoke, incite, harm.
So is "retarded" the same as nigger? Are you fucking nuts??
I'm psychologically challenged. Should I be offended someone calls me "crazy" as if it were a slander against my skin color? Are you retarded?

So naturally Rush Limbaugh used the word "retarded" on his radio show and it took Palin a few days to work out how to respond to the Limbaugh show. According to Sarah Palin, it was okay when Rush said "retarded" because he was using it in parody. So we whites can now say "nigger" so long as we are parodying black folk? Well, this whole post is a parody then!
Wait, she's still yakking. What? Rahm Emmanuelle was wrong to say retarded because he was talking about folk who disagreed with him? You mean progressive Democrats who want to challenge sitting conservative Dems? Those effing retards? A Democrat calling other Democrats is wrong but Rush calling liberals retards and saying the White House needs a "retard camp". is just fine? Hypocrit!
Once again the Republicans show that they can and will do whatever they please in the face of all common decency while holding us "lesser" Americans to a whole different and unequal standard.

How dare you Sarah Palin? How dare you suggest "retard" is equal to "nigger" Do you need a history lesson about our track record of attrocities against black folk? Kidnapping them, selling them into forced labor, lynchings, cross burnings, racial profiling.
I have never seen Texas good ol' boys drag a wheelchair bound person from the back of their pickup but they sure did drag and kill that "nigger".
I have never heard of New York cops shooting developmentally disabled person, but I sure have heard how they like to shoot and kill those niggers.
I always hear white folk complaining about those niggers but I rarely hear anyone complain about the Special Olympics.

No Sarah, nigger is not the same as retarded and you ought to be ashamed of yourself and your double standard. But you aren't. Why should you care? So what if you spread half truths and lies and won't stand up with the courage of your convictions? So what if you are so senseless and ignorant that you would take one of the most harmful words in the English language and compare it to something as silly as "retard"? You're making money right? Lots of it. Laughing all the way to the bank you are! Win, lose or draw you are coming out if this with shitloads of cash.

07 February 2010

Now that I've gotten my medicine, I've mellowed substantially and once more flow effortlessly with the way with one exception: I still get caught up in the affairs of this world, my country.
Be mindless, self-less, teaches the Tao to which I aspire.
I try so very hard but in the end my worry for all of you, all you dumb apes, all my brothers and sisters spread out across the world, each and every one of you binds me. So instead of following my way I seem to think that maybe in some small way that I might help you all in some way. The problem is that I just don't know how to.
What am I going to say? What magic can I hope to impart to anyone that will open their eyes and cause them to see the genuine way? I am art-less, craft-less, simple as an uncarved block.

Still I get frustrated. To allow you all to go the path you are on will end in all of your deaths. To stand up and say something is useless.
My inner compass is going crazy for the lawlessness of the Bush era, the attrocities allowed and the perpatrators walk off scot free. It is upside down to me when criminals like Bush, Cheney and Rove are cheered for their treachery.
I am reminded that Bush Senior said, "I will not invade Iraq and give the White House to the Democrats for the next 40 years."
So the chiefest of the Republican party conspired to make it happen.
Now look.
It doesn't matter who the President is. That President will have to clean up the Bush Junior mess for at least that long.
In their utter greed and lust for riches, top Republicans leaders led this nation down a path this country mey very well not recover from ever. Even if the economy is allowed to recover, our armed forces are broken with the draft the only way left to fix it for the hard challenges to come. Even if we win these wars, their cost will far exceed their worth and terrorists will still try to attack this nation.
The Republicans didn't care. All that was important to them were dollar signs. Now we're in it to win it I guess.

Easy there Michael. Take a breath.
I do go on tangents.
The way is beautiful and wide open, this world is full of snares and pitfalls. All is One, One is All.
I wish to keep seeing beauty, though I shouldn't know what beauty is.
But the world! My country! Where are you going?

Today, America's strength is fading. She is dying from within. The rulers of America for 20 of the last 28 years have been Republican. How can anyone argue that this nation is going down the wrong path and that Republicans have willfully steered us that way so they could raid our pocketbooks and to take away our liberty, freedoms and rights as American citizens.
The promise of empire and riches have blinded their eyes.
We are dying a slow death now my countrymen! The Republicans don't care about America and they have shown it through their incessant mismanagement of her. They abuse her, us every chance they get.
Thus the American people, tired of the direction of the nation and endless war, voted for a change. From day 1, radical right Republicans have fought the new President and the new congress. They have called for bloody revolution, acted the part of Tokyo Rose with their propaganda and twisted lies, threatened the life of the current President and obstructed in every way they could the will of the American people who mandated a change.
Now they simply look to regain power. A ruthless bunch of lawless thugs that will stop at nothing to acheive their goals. Once they have regained that power they will never again relinquish it and we will be ruled as Russia was back in the days of the Czars.
I warn you all of this in hopes you will see the truth of it. We can still fight against the evil of the Republican party. If you are a common man like myself and are conservative you are only hanging yourself and your children and their children.
Save yourselves! There is still time!
Excuse me now, I must be on my way.

05 February 2010

So let me be clear. I am not a Democrat any more than I am a Republican. Both parties are full of deceit and corruption. Politicians in this country have held a long deserved rap for being greedy crooks without a lick of conscience who are always trying to sell us all big piles of horse shit.
They say they are on the side of the common man. In fact they are padding their pocket books with cash we common folk can only dream about. Politicians don't care about anything but power and cash. If they didn't care about power or cash, America would have free health care for all and a computer in every classroom.
No, instead our nation pays for better weapons to better kill people with, salaries to the very politicians ripping us all off and tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent that was passed onto us commoners to pay for in the form of higher prices of goods and food, making us all that much poorer.
So, what is a person to do?
The Democrats are Republican light and the Republicans are National Socialists. Neither side has a soul and are only interested in the affairs of us common folk unless it benefits them. Like with the Democrats. They needed us to change the direction of the nation because shit was so bad after 8 years under the illegal Bush government. Then they turn around and betray us. No climate control bill? No free health care? You didn't close Gitmo or end 2 bad wars? You haven't prosecuted George Bush for crimes against humanity? Bigger military spending? Taking bribes from insurance companies (among others)? There's still a Patriot Act?
At least they aren't as bad as the thrice damned Republicans!

Republicans play up to the simple, religious beliefs of fundamentalist Christians and state Miltia groups. Republicans use their religious beliefs to take the Chritian religion, wrap it in their filthy lies and demogoguery, then wrap that poisonous cocoon with the American flag, their forked tongue wagging empty praises to a god they do not believe in nor thinks has any real power over them.
Republicans mesmerize their throng under a mantra of God and Country yet these same self-serving GOP jackals have destroyed the Bill of Rights, given all Presidents dictatorial powers over every citizen in the nation, allowed Bush to rule as a totalitarian (no Republican anywhere lifted one finger to stop his immorality). Under your watch, you destroyed the economy, spied on the American people and gave yourselves the power to have any problematic citizens assassinated or rubbed out for no other reason then they annoyed you! For shame you monsters!
Republicans are sneaky fuckers, you gotta give them that.
They stop at nothing, breaking laws, conning people to get whatever advantage they can over everybody else. It is the very nature of Republicans to lust for things that are not theirs and to steal and covet everything else! Fuck the people, how can we make more money? is the GOP slogan.

The Republicans are master propagandists, like the National Socialists. No other view is allowed on the airwaves of this nation's right wing media,
Republican propaganda machine. There's plenty of room for all kinds of different voices in this great country of ours. Our nation was founded on decency, tolerance and unity. Not to Republicans though. All Republicans want to do is blind more people, spread more lies, breed more hatred.
We know who the voices of the Republican party are: the pig Rush Limbaugh, the martyr Glenn Beck, the dyke Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin as Mary, Mother of God with special commentary by Bull O'Reilly and Dom Hanitty.
Every day these villainous traitors knowingly and willingly go about spreading lies, rumors and innuendos about anyone who doesn't agree with their skewed political policies. They shout down the opposition and act belligerent and hostile because they know they don't have a leg to stand on if they act 'civilly'.
National Socialists were that way too. National Socialists shouted down the opposition, broke into a political rival's headquarters, spread lies to provoke their followers into violently overthrowing the federal goverment. All in the name of Conservatism, morality and God. If anyone can tell me the difference between a follower of today's Republican party and a National Socialist I'd be very interested to read it! Both advocated war and a strong military, both established totalitarianism. Both were violent against or repressed gays, folks from the Middle East and people of color. Both started foreign wars in the name of "national security" and in the name of global hemegony.
Republicans are truly evil and Antichrist.

Anyway this is all about 1 thing and that is lately that I've noticed Republicans and their supporters sure can dish it out but they sure don't like to take it back. It's like the whole party is saying, "Hey! We started the name calling, the lying and muck raising first! You guys on the left need to stay civil or we aren't gong to talk to you!"
Cry me a river!
Oh they can provoke their masses and not expect to take any blame for the consequences of their actions and get some stupid gun owner to take his guns to an event the President of the United States is at in an attempt to both threaten and intimidate a sitting United States President.
Us common Americans can't get mad? We can't get worked up and speak out against your contempt of common Americans? I have no right to feel anger and frustration when after 8 years of you fucking everything in my country up under an unlawfully established Bush administration, you now hinder the business of the people for mere money, greed and power, you sick fuckers?

Play nice, Michael. Bull! I'll play nice when you play nice! Don't start nuthin', won't be nuthin'!
I've said in the past how I longed for a day when the lefties in this country finally got to a point they were ao tired of your GOP shit that they would push back against your bulling tactics and your bully pulpit, get a little rough, play a little dirty ourselves. Many Democrats say "Well we shouldn't lower ourselves to their level."
I say, "We've tried being nice, now it's time to get ugly. The only way to fight a bully is to stand up to them."
And the Republican party and it's followers are bullies, make no mistake about it. National Socialist brownshirts devoted to the cause of American Divine Manifest Destiny. God's Army.

No my fellow brothers and sisters. We cannot allow them to regain their clutches around our throats. The last 8 years was enough for me to see that! Disaster and ruin is all they wrought upon this nation.
Now it's a time for a new direction and a change in things but watch them. Obstructionists, lying, hate-filled, craven and greedy people trying desperately to retake the nation. Do you know why? Because they know if they regain power even for 4 mere years, they can finally take all the sweeping changes Bush made to our Constitution and take them a step further. Once in power, they will use every bit of authority given them to stay in power forever. Yes, I truly believe that is what's going to happen. The will arrest folk like you and me, jail political opponents, lead us into more wars in the name of Security and the American Way of Life, praise be to Jesus!

How do you deal with people like that? They are mentally imbalanced, crazy. Maybe that's why the Democrats are always backing down; Republicans are like a violent mob.
I say no retreat, no surrender. I want my children and grandchildren to have the same equal freedoms under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as I did when I was a kid. Believe it or not my fellow Americans, we were free indeed at one point before Reagan and the Nixon cronies took office in 1980 and expanded the federal government. I mean, Republicans always whine about the size of government but they seem to manage ways to grow it everytime they are in office, further proof of their shicanery.
Under Reagan the federal government infiltrated state and local law enforcement under the guise of the war on drugs so that now our police forces are armed soldiers in service to the federal government first.
Republicans have been setting this up for years and now they are but an election away. Next they will try to take on the world with but 1 ally, Arabs who call themselves Jews.
Madness in the name of faith!

I can only hope that the American people are smarter than I give them credit for and step up before it is too late and oppose the evil of the Republican party while we still have a country to fight for! While we have something left to give to our kids and their kids.